Feminism

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Notice the 40-60's theme that is appropriated by the talker. The comedic undertones with regard to that theme, as well.

Since pregnancy and feminine nature is so anti-feminist, since the idea of motherhood is so against the ideals of feminist corporate whoredom, they need to have a different image from that of the typical. In fact, they resort to the 60's stereotypes because that's what women associate with traditional roles - and traditional roles with motherhood. As feminists, they cannot be serious while saying what needs to be said, though. They have to make it 'funny' or 'silly'.

They mock the very thing that would remind women of what they're missing and the reason their lives are unfulfilled.

I could likely say, confidently, that without feminism, the modern woman's life would be a joke - and that most women's lives are utter jokes. Women trying to be nihilistic Jesters about their own death. Not much else is more off-putting.

Of course, socially, women are better able to negotiate and compromise - because radicalism and extremism is foreign to them without exceptional circumstance within a society.

That behavior of compromise over radical idealism is of course preferable to a controlling/conquering interest which has a foothold on the host populace. As foreign elements always desire 'compromise' and 'tolerance' when they are consuming the resources of the host population. Appealing to the feminine capacity as a roundabout way to make the host patriarchal institution weaker, is beneficial, especially when they can cause strife between the females and the men by owning the judgment of what makes the patriarchs "misogynist".

Better situated men who do not wish to handle strife, latch onto these arguments as a way to hedonistically avoid confrontation - a way of conservatism through cashing in social currency.

An example of this behavior came from an article I've lost, but the man talked about how conservatives in the American past always gave a 'wink' and a 'nudge' when they were encountered with criticism by USA National Socialists. They would say "We do not wish to be anti-Semitic. lol " Later on, the same person who used this behavior regretted the climate he helped create by avoiding a campaign of radicalization which created a conservative culture of eternal compromise for the sake of Jewish security. They wanted to remain the 'right-wing', when they were actually regressive through inaction.

Islam is how Paternalism is preserved in the Old World, and arguably the oldest extensions of human civilization. Thus if paternalism is worthy and beneficial to human society and social functions then such extremism may need to occur within other cultures as well. There are degrees to which a culture and religion must go to *enforce* something like, traditional marriage and monogamy. Furthermore there are problems of incest in Islam (and other old world cultures that do not receive influx of females from other societies). I've heard rumors that it's common for Moslems to marry first or second-cousins. Again, another outcrop of enforcing traditional marriage over centuries. Because families eventually want to keep wealth within their own group, and marriage is a form of trading (based on sexual value of females). Marriage is an elevated form of prostitution. Instead of a female selling herself on the street and making money for a pimp (Western standard), Moslem females are instead sold and traded through the synagogues and mosques, with the families (father) and mosque leader (imam) as the 'pimps'.

'Feminism' is a creation of upper-middle-class Anglo-Saxon elitist women to become 'independent' from men, and also to earn the "same respect" as men in society. The premises of western feminism are deeply flawed. What it actually is, as a social function, is hedonistic for females. Put simply, western females want the same benefits and privileges that western men receive *without* paying the costs that males do. The main cost absolved, and not paid for, is the price of sex. Feminists cannot, and should never be, taken seriously when they ignore the relevance and obviousness of inherent female sexual value. When females claim that men and women are equal, or humanity is "born equal", then this premise must be slammed.

Because females actually are privileged in society, due to being born, and based on their gender and sex alone. Females have *inherent* social value. As a function, females are an inherent *asset* (positive) of society while males are *liabilities* (negative). I talked about this last year in some of my threads. I also came to the conclusion and further observation that being born 'female', in nature, is an extension of (relative) privilege, since females are the safe-guard of genes. Thus females are inherently more deserving of protection, housing, security, and guardians, etc.

Until "feminists" make some philosophical and intellectual admissions, they will *never* become relevant to serious philosophy and considerations. In the US they are actually a hedonistic movement, and sully many of the positive aspects of femininity. What is a beautiful woman, if not feminine, petite, homely, caring for her children, nurturing, and abundant?

I think the most relevant goal and ideal for feminists of the previous two decades (1997-2017) is sex equality of promiscuity. Females want to enjoy the promiscuity of males *without being judged negatively* for it. Thus if a woman fucks around then she must not be "slut-shamed". This has led to the outcrops of many counter-movements. PUA, anti-PUA, sluthate.com, MGTOW, MRA, etc. And it reinforces my own observations about everything. Again it demonstrates that Western Feminism (for whites/WASPs) is about hedonism. Elitist females want to fuck around, but also enjoy the benefits, rewards, and favors as-if they were saints and virgins.

A Modern feminist wants to fuck 100 men, gang-bang, and miscegenation, but at the end, wants to settle-down with a nice white husband, picket fence, and be cared for. Modern feminists and women don't realize, yet, you can't have it both ways.

This is something censored or outright banned, discussed elsewhere, like ILP. And demonstrating this, as a male, means you are a "sexist" or "hater" (of women). This is also redirected, and much the reason and cause why Moderns detest Trump. Because he has preserved many semblances of white Patriarchy. Has remarried with beautiful women, and attractive children, including Ivanka Trump. Thus he gains both the contempt of liberals, leftists, and feminists.

Women, you will find safety in creating laws to account for the worst of men instead of those that enable the best of men.

The best way to be safe is to make sure no man ever has the capability of hurting you.

Lying isn't a problem, only the direction - and a man promising his own irrelevance to everything you want as a woman, while bearing all the costs, is damn euphoric.

A case of flamboyant, outspoken, dumb, and Ebonics, black woman trashing dumber.

I never thought anyone could get Molyneux to shut his mouth for more then 30 seconds, but this Negro managed it with his anecdotes, exposing how he's another example of how true another "stereotype" is.
It's a study on how one guy can pretend, but only for so long, until boredom and watching what he says, forces him to keep quiet.
It was the moment Molyneux alludes to the Bell Curve that got me a bit excited, but the Negro pretended not to hear...or, perhaps, he had no clue what it was.

This reminded me of the old Stardusk & Barbarossa days.
Two simpletons, with a common gripe, speaking of the self-evident, but not daring to go beyond it, applying it to races, for example.
It's an unstated agreement that racial intellectual differences can be corrected with proper nurturing.

Other than that, it's an interesting conversation of how the state has taken over the alpha-male status, using flesh and blood, biological males, as sperm donors, and psychological blow-up dolls, for women to cuddle with because their genetic dispositions have not, yet, been erased by memetic upbringing.
I guess the state, the institution, is now a kind of daddy, women cannot have sex with, but protects them, watches over them, keeps bad men from hurting his little girls...producing little processes.

White female feminists are in a way like cuckqueans. They go to work, stay single and give their tax money to welfare recipients to raise their family instead of their own.

Also, those single and hard working feminists are like socially awkward males who never have children. They work, drink and then die. Meanwhile, the welfare recipients raise their kids, have moments of kinship pride at their achievements and satisfied grandmothers.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

LOL

Pretty much all feminists are Jews and niggers. This is hilarious.

All the prominent feminists I remember: Dworkin, Steinem, Friedan, Firestone, are Jewish.

EDIT: Well, I guess there's that French chick, Simone Bouveaur or something. But she mingled with Jews and was no doubt influenced by their thought patterns.

I'm new to the forum, and though my politics are far left I want to reach out to people as far away from my politics as possible to see if it's possible to have something of a civil conversation. Feminism is a subject I am probably most familiar with, which is why I will respond to a few posts on this thread.

Impulso Oscuro wrote:

OhFortunae wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


When women try to impose power and influence through sexual offers.

Reminds me of this...



Of course it would be none other than whores, who desired to cut off the middle men, in order to service the institution directly.

How were madams in the wild west serving the "institution" directly. It was called the wild west for a reason. There was no institution to serve, no "big government" or "nanny state" as hardline conservatives like to say. Institutions were eventually built, but it was the madams who built them, something you would expect a manly man to do, not blindly serve them.

I notice a double standard among, for instance, right libertarians in how they regard women and men. A woman and man could do exactly the same thing, live exactly the same lives even, and they will spin a different story about them. If a man is a trained cardiologist or surgeon, he is "a great, strong, creative individual who sustains western civilization" or something along those lines. If a woman is a trained cardiologist or surgeon, she is "a blind servant of the institution, an indoctrinated drone of the state, an unnatural aberration destroying western civilization" or something along those lines.

Right libertarians never mention poor and working class women who do hard manual labor all day (as most women on this planet are poor and working class women) because it goes against that ideological spin. They describe all women as a caricature; as some upper middle class, college educated, "progressive princess" who sits in a comfy office all day. This goes against the facts regarding history, geopolitics, and biology. It's about ideological bias.

What does this have to do with madams in the wild west? Well, think of this. What if the founders of wild west towns were men, such as pimps? Would you disparage them so readily and thoughtlessly, or praise them as builders who tamed the wilderness and served no one? Do you see reality as it is or do you filter it through ideological blinders?

AutSider wrote:

Jarno wrote:

Probably old post, but just found this 9:49

The part about heroes is nothing new. TFM made a good video about it:



I know this from my own experience too. The men who risked their lives to defend our country during the war in 1990s are now discarded or even disrespected and outright attacked by many, mostly newer generations and leftist/liberal leaning people for being too fascistic/nationalistic/conservative, blamed that they are hampering progress with their outdated views etc. etc. Some go as far as to outright deny history and invent an alternate history where these men were the aggressors who made the first move and that they should be punished for their war crimes etc etc.

When shit hits the fan and the country needs to be defended suddenly these "evil", masculine, right-wing nationalistic males are called upon to risk their lives defending it, when they are successful in their defense they become an undesirable burden that society needs to get rid of for sake of "progress"... until "progress" fucks everything up and shit hits the fan again...

What wars are you talking about? Are you talking about the Persian Gulf War, Yugoslav Wars, Haiti War? In any case, you misrepresent what many young leftists say about American soldiers. Generally, they don't despise individual American soldiers but despise America's military industrial complex because it is responsible for many genocides and the destruction of many countries around the world. It has little to do with "hampering progress" (which many people on the far left doubt is even possible regarding America's nature as an imperial superpower) and more to do with treating other human beings with a brutality that is unimaginable to most.

My beliefs, as one individual young leftist? My attitude to most American soldiers is one of pity, not hatred, since so many soldiers get PTSD, become homeless, and become addicted to hard drugs because of the horrors they witnessed and did. Of course, I do not blindly see them as heroes, because the fact is what they fought for was for American corporations and government to keep a stranglehold on the globe. Part of that is to invade and destroy small, poor countries in order to "liberate" them, or install puppet dictators who let big business do as it wants. Usually this is to stop them from being an independent nation, often socialist or communist in nature, because that may inspire other countries to revolt.

I don't hate American soldiers, but if I ever did it would be for those reasons. It has little if anything to do with them being too conservative. America hardly, if ever, needs to be defended against a real threat. Most of the time, America is the threat, the aggressor against another country. America makes shit hit the fan not because it is so liberal and progressive but because it is extremely right wing, wanting to impose global dominance on the rest of the world, and making up all sorts of propaganda to justify it. One example: "We are protected you from the barbarian terrorists (who we created and armed) because they hate you for your freedoms."

Æon wrote:

I think the most relevant goal and ideal for feminists of the previous two decades (1997-2017) is sex equality of promiscuity.  Females want to enjoy the promiscuity of males *without being judged negatively* for it.  Thus if a woman fucks around then she must not be "slut-shamed".  This has led to the outcrops of many counter-movements.  PUA, anti-PUA, sluthate.com, MGTOW, MRA, etc.  And it reinforces my own observations about everything.  Again it demonstrates that Western Feminism (for whites/WASPs) is about hedonism.  Elitist females want to fuck around, but also enjoy the benefits, rewards, and favors as-if they were saints and virgins.

A Modern feminist wants to fuck 100 men, gang-bang, and miscegenation, but at the end, wants to settle-down with a nice white husband, picket fence, and be cared for.  Modern feminists and women don't realize, yet, you can't have it both ways.

This is something censored or outright banned, discussed elsewhere, like ILP.  And demonstrating this, as a male, means you are a "sexist" or "hater" (of women).  This is also redirected, and much the reason and cause why Moderns detest Trump.  Because he has preserved many semblances of white Patriarchy.  Has remarried with beautiful women, and attractive children, including Ivanka Trump.  Thus he gains both the contempt of liberals, leftists, and feminists.

I am a woman who supports most feminist causes. Here is your chance to talk to an actual person and not a strawman.

What do I want with sexual equality? I simply want to enjoy the rights many men enjoy without being subjected to ridiculous double standards. I do not have sex often by any measure (and most feminist women aren't interested in banging 100 men or being in gang bangs, just to make that clear), but it's unfair for some idiot to call me a slut just because I to have a relationship or have sex with a man or woman I choose to (which is what men do). I have no interest in settling with a "nice white man" in a picketed fence suburbs, as I dislike the suburbs for many reasons.

And it extends to more than just having sex with whoever I choose (again a right enjoyed by most men). I want to be able to walk alone at night without having to keep mace in my purse in case some asshole decides he is entitled to my body. I want to be able to have a good time at parties without having to worry about some creep poisoning my drink so he could rape me in my sleep. In other words, I want basic human decency many men take completely for granted.

Also, I find your later comments about feminism absurd. So feminism has never, in it's decades of history, contributed to anything intellectually important, despite having a wide influence on academics, scientists, artists, intellectuals, philosophers inside university and out, but a bunch of bitter incels on Reddit are a legitimate "counter movement". Most people don't even know what an MRA or MGTOW is, or who Roosh V or Matt Forney are. That's how relevant these "counter movements" are.

You should have used the moniker "young, black, crippled, degenerate, Jew" to cover all the victim bases.
Redundant since some of the labels mean the same thing.
Crippled as in paraplegic, or blind, or mentally, and/or physically retarded.

Existence is a war, sweetie.
We are in constant war, struggle.
Even when "comfortable" you are breathing, your heart is beating, your body is replacing damaged cells, or small wounds, your autoimmune system is fighting off unwanted intruders.
Your body, your skin, is a walled fortress, keeping out the unwanted, the 'bad", and keeping in the wanted, the "good".
You are discriminating even when you pretend to be open-mined and liberal....witch, or rather which, makes you a hypocrite, or a self-deluding imbecile.

In other words, welcome to the forum...and let us pretend we do not know who you are.

Females hate rape, because sex is their source of power. They control the ovum, and they know when they are most fertile, so they also can control from who they get fertilized.
Males, and this goes across species lines, evolved rape to circumvent this female advantage.
This ploy is usually a beta-male tactic, to deal with being excluded, by females, from the gene pool.
In response females evolved the feminine strategy of allying with individuals within the group, to find protection from this male strategy.
So, females make social alliances usually with the strong male, to maintain their sexual power, of having control over who passes on his genes.

This is the basis of the female demeanor, in regards to social conventions, social etiquette and rape, or anything that threatens their natural power.
The rest is words, and wardrobe.

AutSider wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

LOL

Pretty much all feminists are Jews and niggers. This is hilarious.

All the prominent feminists I remember: Dworkin, Steinem, Friedan, Firestone, are Jewish.

EDIT: Well, I guess there's that French chick, Simone Bouveaur or something. But she mingled with Jews and was no doubt influenced by their thought patterns.

I thought all feminists were upper middle class WASPS who only cared about their personal hedonist pleasures. Now they are Jews and "niggers" insidiously working together in a horrifying collective to destroy western civilization. Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

Satyr wrote:

You should have used the moniker "young, black, Jew, crippled" degenerate, to cover all the victim bases.
Crippled as in paraplegic, or blind, or mentally, and/or physically retarded.

Existence is a war, sweetie.
We are in constant war, struggle.

Females hate rape, because sex is their source of power. They control the ovum, and they know when they are most fertile, so they also can control from who they get fertilized.
Males, and this goes across species lines, evolved rape to circumvent this female advantage.
This ploy is usually a beta-male tactic, to deal with being excluded, by females, from the gene pool.
In response females evolved the feminine strategy of allying with individuals within the group, to find protection from this male strategy.
So, females make social alliances usually with the strong male, to maintain their sexual power, of having control over who passes on his genes.

This is the basis of the female demeanor, in regards to social conventions, social etiquette and rape, or anything that threatens their natural power.
The rest is words, and wardrobe.  

You profess to be a philosopher, Satyr, so I'm sure you know what is an ad hominum. Can you please respond to any of the arguments I made without attacking my person? That would be great.

From all that...and I added more, so go back and reread, you only saw the judgments on you and your motives?
Interesting.

i just explained why you, as a female, want peace, and social stability, or why you, as a female want a strong male, even if in the form of a strong institution, like a police force, or army, or judicial system...and you only saw my personal judgments?
you self-define yourself as a 'leftist' so you admit to being a hypocrite and a feeble minded stunted psychology....I only use more precise language to uncover the meaning behind the political correct jargon.

What is philosophy, for you, dear?
A self-help manual?
A chicken-soup for your soul, to feel good in your fevered dis-ease?
A way to make mankind happy, and to feel loved and appreciated?

Philosophy, dear, is about truth....and the truth is harsh.
Shall I pretend to think otherwise to not insult you, or not hurt your feelings?
Shall I lie, and tell you I respect you, and value your judgments/
Isn't ILP good enough for that?

You, claim to come here to be challenged.
Well, this is it!!!
I will tell you everything I think of you, and of the world we both occupy.
Nothing left said, or hidden, or sweetened for a child.

Here, dear...I'll feminize the wording to not hut a fragile psychology like yours.

Females, because of their sexual role, evolved the traits to facilitate this role.
This means both physically and mentally, psychologically, they are exactly what they ought to be to carry out this reproductive role.

This means that they have to become dependent, so as to increase their efficiency, and to carry to term large brained offspring.
This necessitated a certain physical and mental adaptation.
To compensate for their loss of independence they evolved alternate method of maintaining and increasing their power.

This is why females easily change loyalties....and why they value social stability, rules, and the protection of the vulnerable, namely themselves, during the period of gestation and weening.
This is why females are personality oriented, trying to'read' the nature of the other, and why they are pro-institution, and law and order, and against rape, and violence.
This is why females make poor thinkers, philosophers, innovators, scientists, cooks, soldiers, artists, creators in every field....they never challenge the status quo, they exploit, and manipulate it.
They are good at repeating the status quo, and this is why they were the protectors of traditions, and why, like you, they adopt whatever is most popular, and in vogue and what the majority believes.

Nothing insulting....this is nature, and you reflect your nature, as a female, perfectly.

Satyr wrote:

From all that...and I added more, so go back and reread, you only saw the judgments on you and your motives?
Interesting.

i just explained why you, as a female, want peace, and social stability, or why you, as a female want a strong male, even if in the form of a strong institution, like a police force, or army, or judicial system...and you only saw my personal judgments?
you self-define yourself as a 'leftist' so you admit to being a hypocrite and a feeble minded stunted psychology....I only use more precise language to uncover the meaning behind the political correct jargon.

What is philosophy, for you, dear?
A self-help manual?
A chicken-soup for your soul, to feel good in your fevered dis-ease?
A way to make mankind happy, and to feel loved and appreciated?

Philosophy, dear, is about truth....and the truth is harsh.
Shall I pretend to think otherwise to not insult you, or not hurt your feelings?
Shall I lie, and tell you I respect you, and value your judgments/
Isn't ILP good enough for that?

You, claim to come here to be challenged.
Well, this is it!!!
I will tell you everything I think of you, and of the world we both occupy.
Nothing left said, or hidden, or sweetened for a child.

Dude, address my arguments. At least address just one. Calling me a "female" and "sweetie", and lecturing me on your weird pseudoscience on what rape and sex is, does not mean addressing my arguments. At least make a blockquote of my arguments to Aeon, AutSider, or Impulso Oscuro [sic], and respond to that. At the moment I can't tell which of my points you are responding to. How can you refute my arguments if you don't even make it clear what arguments you address?

I answered you, sweetie....you did not see?
Look again.
What arguments, dear...you declare, and offer zero logic, reasoning, evidence.
Show one "argument" and I'll respond to it.

Sweetie, I begin at the roots.
The "wild west" did have institutions.
It was not anarchy, dear.
It wasn't as controlled and sophisticated as today, due to technological deficiencies, but there was a government, law, and organization.
The Natives had order, as well....their own kind, but order nonetheless.

Chimpanzees have social rules, sweetie.

Tribes, in the jungle, had rules.
Females abide by those rules.
Men challenge them, at their own risk.
No anarchy, sweetie.

Nature is order....life is ordering.
This order then manifests as organized communal order.

Black Jew Witch wrote:

Whatever.  

I'll see if the other users can respond to any of the arguments I made against their points.

You claim whores built and maintained the 'wild west'?
Ha....
And the Negroes built America.
Yes pussy power, supported by males with big guns, moves mountains... otherwise there would be a free-for-all rape festival.

Women used sex to use males to protect them from other males.
This goes back to the primal species stage, and is adapted to more sophisticated Modern forms.

women make good, but unreliable, followers, protectors, repeaters, regugitators, not revolutionaries, rebels, innovators, inventors, thinkers outside the box, creators fo any sort.
When given a recipes they copy it and repeat it religiously, as long as it offers stability and peace.....as long as it is strong. When it weakens and shift allegiances and learn the new rules, and copy the new recipes.

Sweetheart, the fact that males need females to pass on their genes, contributes to women not becoming helpless, fuck-toys....vulnerable to any male that wanted to use and abuse them.
Because strong males monopolize females, beta males evolved different tactics to get pussy, and females exploit this need.
I've briefly explained the underlying reason [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].

Read some books on evolution psychology, dear, and not only the feel-good feminism books, based on Marxism and Abrahamistic delusions.
It's all based on natural selection, and evolved sexual roles and survival strategies...not on your pathetic ideological naivete, implying good/evil or right/wrong behaviors.
Grow, the fuck, up.
You've been brainwashed by Marxism.....and you bought into it because it gratifies your psychosis.

Satyr wrote:

I answered you, sweetie....you did not see?
Look again.
What arguments, dear...you declare, and offer zero logic, reasoning, evidence.
Show one "argument" and I'll respond to it.

Sweetie, I begin at the roots.
The "wild west" did have institutions.
It was not anarchy, dear.
It wasn't as controlled and sophisticated as today, due to technological deficiencies, but there was a government, law, and organization.
The Natives had order, as well....their own kind, but order nonetheless.

Chimpanzees have social rules, sweetie.

Tribes, in the jungle, had rules.
Females abide by those rules.
Men challenge them, at their own risk.
No anarchy, sweetie.

Nature is order....life is ordering.
This order then manifests as organized communal order.

The wild west did have institutions, later on. But back when the madams founded it, there were small towns without much law and order. The biggest thing you had to an institution back then was a small town mayor and sheriffs. Whenever I see you say something like "women serve institutions", you refer to a large bureaucracy, a "nanny state", and you usually imply that women are some kind of Borg that blindly serve the state and its rules. Such a case clearly did not exist in the wild west.

The madams did not serve institutions so much as they made the institutions in the first place. Without the madams, there would be no western town, and later no midwest cities. The wild west is actually a pretty good example of women challenging the rules at their own risk. The madams and their charges clearly took a big risk coming out far away from civilized society to settle in a foreign and dangerous environment to start a business. They also broke a lot of unspoken rules; conventional beliefs regarding what a woman was capable of and her role in society. Women at the time were not thought of as pioneers and prostitutes were seen as nonhuman. The madams and prostitutes clearly broke those rules.

No sweetie...you are deluded if you think whorehouses were institutions that built the west.

No, dear...the church is an institution....a company is one, law is one, the alpha-male chimp is a proto-institution.
A tribal leader is the beginning of what naive women, like you, understand as a bureaucracy.
It is a adaptation of the alpha's power.

Just as gender is the application of sexual roles, so is the institution an abstraction of alpha-maleness.
Why would men living in a lawless world pay for sex, dear?
Are you naive or stupid?
Men made sure other men did not abuse whores, dear.
If not the sheriff then the biggest badest dog in the area...and in return he got serviced for free.

Men allowed whorehouses, dear...to vent excess masculine energies that would otherwise threatened all the towns and the government at large.
Women did shit, but spread their legs and manipulate individual males using sex.
Women have power THROUGH a proxy....a male, or an institution.

Women are not free.
Feminization implies that biological males are obsolete, because they've been replaced by institution - they've been abstracted out of relevance, leaving them only as sperm donors and teddy-bears for women to pretend they are their equal.

What would stop a real man, not brainwashed by modern crap, to not dominate a female?
What?
Her genius?
Her strength?
Her artistry?

Only her manipulation, using sex as a reward, and other males as proxies.

Have you seen Eastwood's Unoforgiven?
Whores were abused, and they paid other men to avenge them.
Do you understand, you pathetically naive female?
What other power did they have, or do they have, other than other men, or masculinity abstracted as institution, calling forth other men with guns and technologies and means to punish?

Female power has always been, since the time we were primitive primates, is to this day, and forever will be, sex.
To put it in memetic contexts....their natural evolved role as gestating and birthing and nurturing agencies is now expressed linguistically, symbolically, metaphorically, ideologically, artistically.
In all fields, from philosophy to art, and from politics to gastronomy, they adopt the popular beliefs, and regurgitate, repeat, copy...adding nothing of their own, remain true to what was GIVEN to them....and then shifting allegiance when a "better" or a new fashion, a new alpha, a new ideology, comes along, with its own beliefs and recipes and methods, and philosophies.

Women have never, and will never challenge anything, unless they feel a shift in power...and then they are on the forefront of a new trend, a new fashion,a new populist movement, a new power.
Only when they sense weakness, do they even consider changing alliances, or breaking trust....whereas males never do, if they are real males and not pussies.
Men die for their families, their ideologies, their clan.  

Women gestate, nurture, maintain...that is all.
They do not challenge, revolutionize, innovate, invent anything new.
This is why males need them.
They are always a means to an end.

Even feminism was invented by MEN....Abrahamics and Marxists, but men of the lowest kind, but biologically speaking they were males, nonetheless.
As it was men, feeble, sick, Europeans, that freed the slaves.
Negroes would have never broken free if not for Europeans and their Abrahamic ideologies.

Women were given freedom...they did not earn it.
They were permitted to pretend they were equals, when for thousands of years they were not trusted to vote, nor to have a voice in communal affairs.
When they finally did, all went to hell.
See what is occurring now....that's all due to a memetic virus....and feminism is but one symptom.
The way things are going collapse is coming....sooner or later.

Then, let's see who will protect you from whatever takes over.
I want you to attempt to reason and argue with a Muslim, for example, about how females are powerful and strong and free-thinkers and builders.

Satyr wrote:

Sweetheart, the fact that males need females to pass on their genes, contributes to women not becoming helpless, fuck-toys....vulnerable to any male that wanted to use and abuse them.
Because strong males monopolize females, beta males evolved different tactics to get pussy, and females exploit this need.
I've briefly explained the underlying reason [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].

Read some books on evolution psychology, dear, and not only the feel-good feminism books, based on Marxism and Abrahamistic delusions.
It's all based on natural selection, and evolved sexual roles and survival strategies...not on your pathetic ideological naivete, implying good/evil or right/wrong behaviors.
Grow, the fuck, up.
You've been brainwashed by Marxism.....and you bought into it because it gratifies your psychosis.

You make many assumptions that are not supported by science. First of all, evolution psychology is not taken seriously by the majority of scientists; biologists, anthropologists, geneticists etc. and for good reason. Most of it is just so stories with little research and evidence done to critically examine its underlying assumptions.

For instance: you're idea of alpha and beta males. No such thing exists. The idea of alpha and beta males came from biologist L. David Mech's book on captive wolves in the 1970s. The problem is, the book was about captive wolves, not wolves in the wild. And Mech has retracted his book ever since. Wild wolves do not function with alpha males dominating female wolves and beta males. What happens is a male wolf and a female wolf create a family, and together act as leaders of that family. The "alpha male" as the macho asshole is actually bad for the survival of a social animal group. If you pridefully think you're an alpha male, remember that you are comparing yourself to a caged animal.

Also, about Darwinism on the whole. Most of Darwinism, such as social Darwinism, is a very biased and limited understanding of Charles Darwin's own theories of evolution. When Charles Darwin speaks of an animal being "fit" to reproduce he simply means an animal most adapted to its environment, not the "alpha male" you have in your head. An arctic fox can be as big and mean as you want it to be, but if it doesn't have the right color of fur it will not be able to hunt prey. Darwin also talks about how animals relied on cooperation to survive, not just competition. Nature does have plenty of competition, but it's also a reciprocal relationship where different animals (even of different species) have to balance each other out for the survival of the entire ecosystem. If you don't like that idea, don't argue with me, argue with Darwin.

Most people into evolutionary psychology have incorrect ideas of how human beings behave in the wild; in other words in indigenous tribes and before civilization. Human beings, for most of their 200,000 year history, were promiscuous and not patriarchal, with men and women being for the most part equal. The system of alpha males and beta males did not exist. You have this idea of prehistoric men doing all the hard work while prehistoric women did nothing but leach off the men. That is not true. Women did most of the work and provided most of the food through small game, gathering, and growing food. Men hunted, but their big game prizes were rare supplements. Humanity survived on the backs of women for most of its history.  

If you want to truly understand biology, you have to read a lot more by current scientists. Your pet evopsyche theories have a limited if downright wrong idea of how nature actually works. Science moved beyond the 19th century. Of course I'm not saying nature or prehistoric human societies were a bed of roses. Nature is tough, but nature is complex, and you can't make nature serve an ideology without being wrong.